This article is written by Haripriya.C, B.A.,LL.B., Government Law College, Coimbatore, during her internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords: virtual courts, rural litigants, access to justice, digital divide, court accessibility.
Abstract:
The integration of virtual courts into the Indian judicial system, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the traditional courtroom model into a digital landscape. While this shift has introduced efficiency and flexibility, it has also exposed deep-rooted disparities in digital access for rural litigants. This article critically examines whether virtual courts have reduced access to justice for rural litigants by analyzing barriers such as poor internet connectivity, lack of digital literacy, inadequate infrastructure, and language limitations. Through empirical observations and judicial responses, the article argues that although virtual courts offer long-term potential, their current implementation risks excluding rural populations from full and fair legal participation.
INTRODUCTION:
A Virtual Court refers to a digital platform that facilitates the conduct of judicial proceedings without the physical presence of the parties, judges, or lawyers in a traditional courtroom setting. Instead, the entire process is carried out online using technology-enabled tools such as,video conferencing for hearings and trials, e-filing portals for submitting petitions, affidavits, and evidence, digital signature mechanisms for document authentication, online payment systems for court fees and fines and real-time access to case data via apps like the e-Courts Services mobile application.
The advent of virtual courts in India marked a watershed moment in the evolution of the judicial system, primarily catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic. These courts, leveraging digital platforms and tools such as video conferencing, e-filing, digital signatures, and the e-Courts Services app, were envisioned as a solution to ensure continuity of justice during nationwide lockdowns. The shift was not merely technological but constitutional, aiming to uphold the right to a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
THE RISE OF VIRTUAL COURTS
The emergence of virtual courts in India marks a significant turning point in the country’s judicial history. Although discussions on digitizing the justice system had been ongoing for years, it was the COVID-19 pandemic that truly accelerated this transition. With physical courts forced to suspend operations during nationwide lockdowns in March 2020, the judiciary quickly adapted to technology-based alternatives to maintain continuity in legal proceedings.
In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 (2020) the Supreme Court held that access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and must not be suspended even during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court directed all High Courts to adopt video conferencing technology for conducting urgent hearings and to frame suitable guidelines to facilitate its use. It further allowed subordinate courts to follow similar procedures and emphasized that courts must exercise discretion in requiring physical presence, prioritizing remote access wherever possible. The judgment recognized the need for technological adaptation while cautioning that such systems must remain inclusive and not hinder justice delivery.
The Supreme Court of India, followed by various High Courts and subordinate courts, adopted video conferencing platforms to conduct hearings. Simultaneously, digital services such as e-filing, e-payment of court fees, and online document submission became the norm. These changes were supported by the E-Courts Mission Mode Project, part of the National e-Governance Plan, which provided the digital backbone necessary for virtual judicial functioning.
The initial aim was to safeguard the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and ensure that justice was not derailed due to pandemic-related disruptions. Over time, virtual courts began to offer benefits beyond crisis management, including reduced case delays, cost savings for litigants, and increased transparency. However, this rapid digitization also exposed deep-rooted inequalities in digital access, especially for rural litigants.
The conceptual foundation of virtual courts rests on three core promises:
1. Efficiency: Virtual courts enhance judicial efficiency by reducing delays, minimizing adjournments, and eliminating the need for physical travel. This leads to faster hearings, quicker case disposal, and improved judicial productivity, helping to clear the longstanding backlog in courts.
2. Cost Reduction: By eliminating travel, accommodation, and lengthy in-person procedures, virtual courts significantly lower litigation expenses. This cost-saving is especially valuable for rural litigants and economically weaker sections who often face financial hurdles in accessing distant courts.
3. Continuity: Virtual courts ensure the continuity of judicial functions during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. They uphold the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and allow the justice delivery system to operate uninterrupted, even during lockdowns or infrastructural crises.
In the case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, the Court upheld the principle of open justice and allowed live-streaming of proceedings, recognizing technology as a tool to democratize access.
Thus, virtual courts offer key advantages such as saving time and costs, reducing the need for travel, and enabling faster disposal of cases. They ensure continuity of justice during emergencies and promote transparency and efficiency. For many, especially in urban areas, virtual hearings have improved access and reduced procedural delays.
THE RURAL REALITY:
Despite the many advantages of virtual courts, rural litigants continue to face significant barriers to access justice. The key barriers faced by the rural litigants include:
- Digital Infrastructure Deficit- One of the most pressing challenges for rural litigants is the lack of basic digital infrastructure. Many villages in India suffer from unstable or no internet connectivity, limited mobile network coverage, and lack of access to digital devices such as smartphones, computers, or webcams. This digital void makes it nearly impossible for rural individuals to join virtual hearings or engage with online court services effectively. Without proper infrastructure, the justice system’s reliance on digital platforms becomes exclusionary rather than empowering.
ILLUSTRATION- A farmer from a remote village in Bihar files a land dispute case. When the hearing is shifted to virtual mode, he cannot join due to lack of a smartphone or internet access. He misses the hearing, resulting in a dismissal. This reflects a denial of fair opportunity due to technical exclusion.
- Low Digital Literacy- Even where infrastructure exists, digital literacy remains alarmingly low among rural litigants. Many individuals are unfamiliar with operating computers, navigating e-filing portals, or understanding virtual court procedures. This knowledge gap places rural participants at a disadvantage and often forces them to depend heavily on others, even for the most basic legal interactions. In such cases, justice becomes not just delayed but inaccessible due to technological illiteracy.
- Language and Procedural Barriers– Virtual court platforms and documentation are often in English, which rural litigants find difficult to comprehend. The absence of translation support or user-friendly interfaces means that they cannot follow proceedings or understand their rights and responsibilities clearly. This language divide further deepens the rural-urban gap in judicial access.
- Lack of Legal Aid and On-Ground Support- In traditional court setups, rural litigants often rely on informal support from legal clerks, advocates, or legal aid desks for guidance. Virtual courts have limited or eliminated such face-to-face assistance, leaving rural participants with little or no help in navigating legal procedures. This isolation can result in missed hearings, improperly filed documents, or incomplete submissions—leading to adverse outcomes.
- Financial Constraints- Many rural citizens cannot afford smartphones, laptops, data plans, or travel to towns with better connectivity to access virtual courtrooms. Legal proceedings that are supposedly cost-saving turn into a financial burden when litigants must arrange for tech access or hire intermediaries. This economic barrier reinforces existing inequalities and deters rural populations from fully engaging with the justice system.
These barriers collectively weaken the ability of rural litigants to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. As a result, concerns about the fairness, inclusiveness, and constitutional promise of equal access to justice grow in the digital era.
Article 39A mandates the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and specifically requires the provision of free legal aid to prevent denial of justice due to economic or other disabilities. This constitutional directive becomes highly relevant in the context of virtual courts, especially for rural litigants. While virtual courts offer convenience and speed, they risk excluding individuals from remote or underdeveloped areas who lack internet access, digital literacy, or necessary devices. If not implemented inclusively, virtual proceedings may inadvertently create barriers that deny rural citizens their right to be heard. Therefore, in alignment with Article 39A, the State has a duty to bridge the digital divide through infrastructure development, legal awareness programs, and localized support centres to ensure that access to justice remains fair, equitable, and truly universal in the digital era.
THE WAY FORWARD
Virtual courts represent a significant step forward in judicial reform. However, if they are to be a true instrument of justice, they must be inclusive. To bridge the digital justice gap, a multipronged strategy is required:
- Infrastructure Development- To make virtual courts viable in rural areas, robust digital infrastructure must be prioritized. This includes expanding rural broadband connectivity through fiber-optic networks or satellite internet services. The government can also install solar-powered digital court kiosks in panchayats or village centers, equipped with video conferencing tools and internet access. These kiosks can serve as touch points for attending hearings, filing documents, or accessing case information. Additionally, mobile court vans fitted with internet-enabled legal access tools can be deployed in extremely remote areas. Such efforts will lay the groundwork for an inclusive virtual justice system.
- Digital Literacy Programs- Building infrastructure alone is insufficient without parallel efforts to enhance digital literacy. Many rural residents are unaware of how to use smartphones or computers effectively, let alone access e-filing portals or participate in video hearings. Therefore, nationwide digital legal literacy campaigns must be launched, particularly targeting rural citizens, village-level paralegals, NGO workers, and panchayat officials. These programs should offer hands-on training in using court apps, e-filing systems, attending video hearings, and understanding digital legal rights. This empowerment will reduce dependency on intermediaries and promote direct participation.
- Localized Access Points – To address the physical divide, the government and judiciary should establish e-Seva Kendras, Common Service Centres (CSCs), and Legal Service Authority (LSA) facilitation centres within or near villages. These centres would function as walk-in support hubs, equipped with computers, legal software, printers, scanners, and high-speed internet. Trained legal assistants and volunteers should be available to help with e-filing, case tracking, and attending hearings. Such decentralized access points can act as bridges between rural litigants and the virtual legal ecosystem.
- Multilingual Support- Language remains a major barrier in virtual legal platforms, which are often English-centric. To make them more inclusive, virtual court systems must be redesigned with multilingual support, enabling navigation and communication in regional languages. This includes translated instructions, voice-guided options, and language-switch features on e-court apps and websites. Doing so ensures that litigants, especially those with limited education, can confidently engage with digital court systems without being overwhelmed.
- Policy Support- Strong policy frameworks are needed to ensure that virtual courts do not inadvertently marginalize those they aim to serve. Guidelines must stipulate that virtual hearings in rural or economically weaker sections should not be imposed by default. Participation in virtual proceedings must be voluntary and based on informed consent, with clear alternatives available. Legislative provisions should mandate judicial discretion in choosing between physical and virtual hearings, considering the digital capacity of the parties involved. Moreover, legal aid schemes should be expanded to include virtual access support and training.
In a technology-driven era, integrating digital tools in the judiciary is essential to ensure fair justice across both urban and rural areas. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of video-conferenced evidence, laying the groundwork for virtual courts.
To ensure fair access, targeted strategies like rural digital infrastructure, legal aid centres, and multilingual virtual platforms must be implemented.
CONCLUSION
While virtual courts have revolutionized India’s judicial landscape by enhancing efficiency, reducing delays, and ensuring continuity during emergencies, they have also unintentionally widened the justice gap for rural litigants. Inadequate digital infrastructure, low levels of digital literacy, linguistic barriers, and limited access to devices remain significant hurdles. These challenges hinder the ability of rural citizens to meaningfully participate in virtual proceedings, raising concerns about inclusivity and fairness in the digital justice system.
Therefore, to uphold the constitutional promise of equal access to justice, virtual court reforms must prioritize rural empowerment. This includes developing last-mile connectivity, establishing localized support centers, promoting digital literacy, and ensuring procedural safeguards. Unless these structural gaps are addressed, virtual courts, though promising, risk becoming a tool of exclusion rather than empowerment for rural India.
